A federal judge in Massachusetts on Thursday struck down President Trump's freeze on processing immigration applications for citizens of countries covered by his travel ban, ruling the policy unlawful and issuing an injunction that orders the government to resume adjudicating cases it had shelved for months.
U.S. District Judge Julia Kobick, an appointee of former President Biden, sided with more than 200 plaintiffs whose applications for green cards, citizenship, work authorization, and asylum had stalled under a series of executive actions Trump signed in the wake of a deadly attack on National Guard members in Washington, D.C., last year. The Hill first reported the ruling Thursday morning.
The decision lands squarely in the growing pile of courtroom setbacks the administration faces as it tries to tighten immigration enforcement through executive action. For conservatives who back the president's travel ban, the ruling raises a familiar frustration: a single district judge, appointed by the prior administration, second-guessing national-security decisions made in the aftermath of a real attack that left a real American service member dead.
Kobick's opinion took direct aim at the government's justification for the freeze. The Trump administration pointed to two violent incidents involving Afghan nationals, the attack in Washington that killed West Virginia National Guard member Sarah Beckstrom, and a separate thwarted terror plot, as grounds for halting application processing across 39 countries and pausing asylum adjudications worldwide.
The judge was unpersuaded. She wrote:
"These are thin reeds on which to rest an assertion of reasoned decisionmaking. With respect to the criminal acts planned or committed by Afghan nationals, the government makes no argument as to how two serious, but isolated, violent crimes planned by two people from one country is rationally connected with a policy stopping adjudication of benefit applications by people from 39 different countries, as well as applications for asylum by people from every country in the world."
That framing deserves scrutiny. The administration did not invent the threat. Rahmanullah Lakanwal was charged in the death of Beckstrom after the D.C. attack. A second plot was disrupted. The president responded with a broad set of measures, new limits on asylum, a halt on immigration applications, designed to buy time for additional vetting.
Whether that response was proportionate is a legitimate policy debate. But Kobick's opinion treats the connection between the attacks and the 39-country freeze as essentially irrational, a conclusion that sidesteps the executive branch's traditional deference on matters of national security and immigration.
The pattern is not unique to this case. Federal judges have increasingly inserted themselves into clashes with the Trump administration, as seen in a recent ruling blocking the administration's bid for Arizona voter registration data.
Kobick also found that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services had no legal authority to sit on applications indefinitely. She pointed to existing statutes and regulations that require the agency to reach a decision after a reasonable period of investigation.
In her ruling, the judge wrote:
"By statute and regulation, Congress and USCIS have specified that, at a certain point, investigations must end and a decision must be made. The charge to conduct investigations does not give USCIS authority to perpetually delay adjudication of applications."
She added that the administration failed to demonstrate "a reasoned basis for concern about public safety or national security risks by individuals from the 39 identified countries living in the United States today." And she found no indication that USCIS "meaningfully considered the consequences of throwing thousands of benefit applicants into indefinite limbo and perpetual uncertainty about whether they will be granted asylum, become a United States citizen, receive work authorization, or obtain a green card."
On the procedural merits, Kobick has a point. Agencies do have statutory deadlines, and the government generally cannot ignore them by fiat. But the broader conclusion, that the freeze lacked any rational basis, is where the ruling overreaches.
Consider the facts the judge herself acknowledged. An Afghan national murdered an American service member on U.S. soil. A second terror plot was stopped. The president acted within days, using executive authority Congress has repeatedly granted to the office. The travel ban itself covers countries the government has identified as posing elevated security risks.
Kobick's opinion treats these events as "isolated" and disconnected from the broader freeze. But presidents do not set immigration policy one applicant at a time. When a vetting failure results in an American death, a system-wide pause to reassess screening procedures is not irrational, it is the kind of precaution voters expect.
The ruling fits a broader pattern of federal courts challenging executive authority on multiple fronts. In another recent case, a federal judge ordered the Pentagon to restore full press access and accused the Defense Department of defying an earlier order, a reminder that the judiciary is not shy about asserting itself against the current administration.
The more than 200 plaintiffs in this case had their applications frozen. That is a real hardship, and the legal system exists to address it. But the remedy Kobick chose, an injunction that effectively tells the executive branch its national-security rationale is baseless, goes further than the facts require.
The injunction orders the government to resume processing the stalled applications. The Trump administration has not yet announced whether it will appeal, but its track record suggests it will. The case, Doe v. Trump, is docketed in federal court in Massachusetts.
Several key questions remain unanswered. The exact scope of the injunction, whether it covers all 39 countries or only the named plaintiffs, is not fully spelled out in available reporting. The specific executive orders at issue have not been individually identified. And the administration's next move could include an emergency stay request to a higher court.
The administration has shown a willingness to fight these battles through the appellate process. It recently filed an emergency appeal to lift a judicial halt in a separate case, signaling that it views district-court injunctions as obstacles to be challenged, not accepted.
Meanwhile, other federal courts have reached very different conclusions when evaluating government authority. A federal judge recently ruled that lethal force against an activist was justified and dismissed a lawsuit with prejudice, a reminder that the judiciary is not monolithic, even if the rulings that make headlines tend to cut one direction.
Kobick was appointed by President Biden. That fact alone does not disqualify her ruling, but it is relevant context. The federal bench is stocked with judges whose judicial philosophy aligns with the administration that nominated them. When a Biden appointee blocks a Trump immigration policy, the public is entitled to weigh that dynamic.
The judge found the freeze "broadly discriminatory" and said the administration was "violating the law by directing an agency not to carry out its core mission." Strong language. But USCIS's core mission includes protecting national security through proper vetting, a mission the administration argues it was trying to fulfill, not abandon.
Sarah Beckstrom is dead. She was a West Virginia National Guard member serving her country in the nation's capital when she was killed. The man charged in her death entered the country through a system the administration sought to pause and reassess.
A federal judge has now told the government that pausing that system lacked a rational basis. Beckstrom's family, and the American public, may see it differently.
When judges decide that a murdered service member and a foiled terror plot do not constitute a reasonable basis for caution, the problem is not with the policy, it is with the standard.